Does the Attorney General have to preserve or amend the reasons for imposing consecutive sentences?

^5. A trial court must state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. (See People v. Neal (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1117.) Because trial counsel did not object to the lack of any such reasons, he did not preserve that error. (See People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 730-731.) But the Attorney General does not contend that this precludes him from arguing that the trial evidence did not support the implied finding that some of the counts were committed on separate occasions. (See People v. Garza (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1091 [if defendant is correct that some counts did not occur on separate occasions "the sentence was unauthorized in this respect"].)